[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Fair enough Roelof.  But if you agree it is a "must have" what is your
definition of that consensus?  Mine is the current one in the GAC OPs.  Do
you have a different one in mind?

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 

 

From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl] 
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 1:01 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>;
accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion

 

Dear Milton,

 

Thanks for your civilized and constructive response.

 

However, I get the impression that not considering the GAC as an enemy to
you means that I now have GAC friends. I have friends everywhere (and
enemies some might argue), but that is not relevant at all here. 

So just to make sure: I consider governments to be important stakeholders.
That's it.

 

There's another point were we seem to miscommunicate. Contrary to what you
think, we do not disagree on "The consensus requirement is not a nice to
have or a should have, it is a must have " You might want to re-read my
email. Open-minded. 

 

Warm regards,

 

Roelof Meijer

 

From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu> >
Date: donderdag 12 november 2015 23:48
To: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl> >,
"accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> "
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion

 

1.     Do you think it is OK to ignore our position?

No I don't and I don't. But to me, the multistakeholdermodel does not mean
that ALL stakeholders ALWAYS get ALL their wishes fulfilled. Would be nice,
but does not work. Which the GAC realized, so they shifted. Nice to haves,
should haves, must haves.

 

Roelof:

It's odd that you are saying that to me. Have you said it to your GAC
friends? Yes, indeed, no one gets all that they want. That applies to GAC as
well as to any other stakeholder, doesn't it?

 

I don't think you are correct that the GAC has shifted its position. If it
can redefine consensus to move away from true consensus (no objection) to
some kind of a majority, it is still trying to retain the potential to offer
by-law privileged "advice" without having the assent of all governments.
This is just playing a word game, not changing its position. 

 

The consensus requirement is not a nice to have or a should have, it is a
must have - not only for us (NCSG) but for the transition as a whole. Any
deviation from that will kill the transition in the U.S. Congress. There is
no doubt about this. 

 

NCSG has shown a willingness to adjust its position on AC participation in
the community mechanism. The GAC must face reality and adjust its position
too, or be left behind. If the GAC is left behind because of its
inconsistency and intransigence, it will be no use whining that we are
ignoring "a major stakeholder group" - they are ignoring the consensus. If
they are going to be in the community mechanism as part of the sole
designator, they must have real consensus behind their advice. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151113/74bc039e/attachment-0001.html>